4 ms·

Ask HN: Right to Repair Software?

13 points by pabs3 4y ago

Would you support a right to repair software in law? How could we implement such a right?

mdmglr 4y ago
Say I want to repair Microsoft Word. One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code, build tooling, any engineering documents and perhaps access to the dev team depending on how far this law would go. Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. Microsoft already does the latter though maybe not to the level desired. They have C#, VBScript and COM. I recall using COM Interop in C# to get access to online presence data from Microsoft Lync.
- rlpb 4y ago
  > Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. I routinely encounter bugs in software that wouldn't be fixable with some API. How about something like "it crashes on startup when I have graphics driver X installed" for example, if it turns out to be due to a bug in Word rather than in the graphics driver? This is the sort of weird interaction that usually leads to me wanting to fix things. IME, API access tends to be about additional functionality or integrations, not bugfixing. I equate "right to repair" with the latter, not the former.
- trasz4 4y ago
  >One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code Not really, no. There are examples of software being repaired, or even completely rebuilt, without access to the original source code - from Falcon BMS to (parts of) Microsoft's own Excel.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    That there are examples of something being done doesn't mean that it's a practical system. Just saying "Here's a hex editor. Have at it" isn't meaningfully supporting a right to repair.
    - singpolyma3 4y ago
      And yet it would be better than the current situation where the hex editor is a copyright infringement.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        It would be an improvement, but I think it's closer to an update of first-sale doctrine than it is to a meaningfully supported right to repair.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    There are reasonably good decompilers already, and the right to use them being added to the law would probably lead to improving them.
  - mdmglr 4y ago
    No doubt. Are you referring to using tools like ida?
- 2rsf 4y ago
  I wanted to answer that those laws are not about the enabling tools, but I am probably wrong as some of the suggestions are to "require automobile manufacturers to sell the same service materials and diagnostics directly to consumers or to independent mechanics as they provide exclusively to their dealerships." So diagnostics and ready materials, not the blueprints and access to the raw materials or machinery. You should be able to but spare parts and make sure they work, but not manufacture them yourself. What is the equivalent in software? splitting the software to libraries with known APIs?
funcDropShadow 4y ago
The GPL already includes a right to repair GPL-licensed software.
paulcole 4y ago
No, I wouldn’t support this for software that doesn’t include a right-to-repair-license. It’s the software maker’s choice to offer it and the consumer’s choice to buy it or not.
- thfuran 4y ago
  Do you oppose all consumer protections or just this one?
  - paulcole 4y ago
    This one specifically because: 1) It’s the one we’re talking about here 2) “All” is pretty broad
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Your rationale seems equally applicable to any consumer protection though.
      - paulcole 4y ago
        I think some things should have a higher standard than others. For example, medicine vs. video games. So not willing to apply the same standard to everything.
        thfuran 4y ago
        Then should there be a right to repair for software that is (embedded on) a medical device?
        paulcole 4y ago
        No, because I think it should be up to the maker whether they want to offer right to repair as a feature of their product. Right to repair is not necessarily "better."
- 4y ago
warrenm 4y ago
I wouldn't care I'm one person Not a development team with all the tribal knowledge of a given tool, and the millions of developer-hours that have already gone into building it OSS is already "right to repair" ... yet how many people actually contribute something when they find an issue? Expand that to "how many people even submit a bug when they find a problem?" I'd wager the answer to the broader question is a lot less than 0.1% And of those, the ones who actually make a fix is probably also a lot less than 0.1% Out of a million users, maybe 1,000 would submit a bug (if they found it) Out of 1,000 bug submitters, maybe 1 would post a fix (if they could)
- rlpb 4y ago
  > OSS is already "right to repair" ... yet how many people actually contribute something when they find an issue? It doesn't matter. It just takes one, and then it's fixed for everyone. I generally do contribute. Now I'm employed to do so, but I still do the same when working on some hobby thing.
  - warrenm 4y ago
    >I generally do contribute Congratulations! You're in the 0.1% of the 0.1%! For the remaining population ... it doesn't matter whether they "could" 'fix it' - they won't (or can't)
    - rlpb 4y ago
      Did you miss where I said: It just takes one, and then it's fixed for everyone?
      - warrenm 4y ago
        Did you miss where I said it doesn't matter?
JohnFen 4y ago
> How could we implement such a right? I can't even begin to answer the first question until the second question is at least sketched out. What does "right to repair" even mean in software? Software is very different than physical machinery in many really important ways. Technically, in the US, you already have the "right to repair" except in the cases where you'd need to break an access control to do it. Revisiting the DMCA anticircumvention laws strikes me as the best path to "right to repair".
RecycledEle 4y ago
We would implement it through the "4 freedoms" of software. https://edtechbooks.org/openedreader/stallmans-four-freedom#:~:text=The%20freedom%20to%20run%20the,you%20can%20help%20your%20neighbor https://edtechbooks.org/openedreader/stallmans-four-freedom#....
tddpirate 4y ago
When one speaks about Right to Repair, one needs to consider also ability to test the software to verify that nothing else was broken. This means access to the software testing suite used by the software provider. Unfortunately, the software testing suite is not considered by the various GPL licenses to be part of the source code, even though it would help safely modifying the software in question. An example: Oracle keeps control over Java by not making its Java certification test suite publicly available.
- pabs3 4y ago
  More details on the Java Compatibility Kit access: https://openjdk.org/groups/conformance/JckAccess/ https://openjdk.org/groups/conformance/JckAccess/
tddpirate 4y ago
Concerning medical software, there is the general problem of having to regulate "tampering" (making unauthorized alterations) of medical equipment.

13 points by pabs3 4y ago

Would you support a right to repair software in law? How could we implement such a right?

Say I want to repair Microsoft Word. One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code, build tooling, any engineering documents and perhaps access to the dev team depending on how far this law would go. Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. Microsoft already does the latter though maybe not to the level desired. They have C#, VBScript and COM. I recall using COM Interop in C# to get access to online presence data from Microsoft Lync.

rlpb 4y ago
> Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. I routinely encounter bugs in software that wouldn't be fixable with some API. How about something like "it crashes on startup when I have graphics driver X installed" for example, if it turns out to be due to a bug in Word rather than in the graphics driver? This is the sort of weird interaction that usually leads to me wanting to fix things. IME, API access tends to be about additional functionality or integrations, not bugfixing. I equate "right to repair" with the latter, not the former.
trasz4 4y ago
>One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code Not really, no. There are examples of software being repaired, or even completely rebuilt, without access to the original source code - from Falcon BMS to (parts of) Microsoft's own Excel.
- thfuran 4y ago
  That there are examples of something being done doesn't mean that it's a practical system. Just saying "Here's a hex editor. Have at it" isn't meaningfully supporting a right to repair.
  - singpolyma3 4y ago
    And yet it would be better than the current situation where the hex editor is a copyright infringement.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      It would be an improvement, but I think it's closer to an update of first-sale doctrine than it is to a meaningfully supported right to repair.
- pabs3 4y ago
  There are reasonably good decompilers already, and the right to use them being added to the law would probably lead to improving them.
- mdmglr 4y ago
  No doubt. Are you referring to using tools like ida?
2rsf 4y ago
I wanted to answer that those laws are not about the enabling tools, but I am probably wrong as some of the suggestions are to "require automobile manufacturers to sell the same service materials and diagnostics directly to consumers or to independent mechanics as they provide exclusively to their dealerships." So diagnostics and ready materials, not the blueprints and access to the raw materials or machinery. You should be able to but spare parts and make sure they work, but not manufacture them yourself. What is the equivalent in software? splitting the software to libraries with known APIs?

funcDropShadow 4y ago

The GPL already includes a right to repair GPL-licensed software.

paulcole 4y ago

No, I wouldn’t support this for software that doesn’t include a right-to-repair-license. It’s the software maker’s choice to offer it and the consumer’s choice to buy it or not.

thfuran 4y ago
Do you oppose all consumer protections or just this one?
- paulcole 4y ago
  This one specifically because: 1) It’s the one we’re talking about here 2) “All” is pretty broad
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Your rationale seems equally applicable to any consumer protection though.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      I think some things should have a higher standard than others. For example, medicine vs. video games. So not willing to apply the same standard to everything.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        Then should there be a right to repair for software that is (embedded on) a medical device?
        paulcole 4y ago
        No, because I think it should be up to the maker whether they want to offer right to repair as a feature of their product. Right to repair is not necessarily "better."
4y ago

warrenm 4y ago

I wouldn't care I'm one person Not a development team with all the tribal knowledge of a given tool, and the millions of developer-hours that have already gone into building it OSS is already "right to repair" ... yet how many people actually contribute something when they find an issue? Expand that to "how many people even submit a bug when they find a problem?" I'd wager the answer to the broader question is a lot less than 0.1% And of those, the ones who actually make a fix is probably also a lot less than 0.1% Out of a million users, maybe 1,000 would submit a bug (if they found it) Out of 1,000 bug submitters, maybe 1 would post a fix (if they could)

rlpb 4y ago
> OSS is already "right to repair" ... yet how many people actually contribute something when they find an issue? It doesn't matter. It just takes one, and then it's fixed for everyone. I generally do contribute. Now I'm employed to do so, but I still do the same when working on some hobby thing.
- warrenm 4y ago
  >I generally do contribute Congratulations! You're in the 0.1% of the 0.1%! For the remaining population ... it doesn't matter whether they "could" 'fix it' - they won't (or can't)
  - rlpb 4y ago
    Did you miss where I said: It just takes one, and then it's fixed for everyone?
    - warrenm 4y ago
      Did you miss where I said it doesn't matter?

JohnFen 4y ago

> How could we implement such a right? I can't even begin to answer the first question until the second question is at least sketched out. What does "right to repair" even mean in software? Software is very different than physical machinery in many really important ways. Technically, in the US, you already have the "right to repair" except in the cases where you'd need to break an access control to do it. Revisiting the DMCA anticircumvention laws strikes me as the best path to "right to repair".

RecycledEle 4y ago

We would implement it through the "4 freedoms" of software. https://edtechbooks.org/openedreader/stallmans-four-freedom#:~:text=The%20freedom%20to%20run%20the,you%20can%20help%20your%20neighbor https://edtechbooks.org/openedreader/stallmans-four-freedom#....

tddpirate 4y ago

When one speaks about Right to Repair, one needs to consider also ability to test the software to verify that nothing else was broken. This means access to the software testing suite used by the software provider. Unfortunately, the software testing suite is not considered by the various GPL licenses to be part of the source code, even though it would help safely modifying the software in question. An example: Oracle keeps control over Java by not making its Java certification test suite publicly available.

pabs3 4y ago
More details on the Java Compatibility Kit access: https://openjdk.org/groups/conformance/JckAccess/ https://openjdk.org/groups/conformance/JckAccess/

tddpirate 4y ago

Concerning medical software, there is the general problem of having to regulate "tampering" (making unauthorized alterations) of medical equipment.